My cousin is a pretty brilliant and dedicated guy. He spent a number of years at Columbia University getting his MD/PhD. Yup he did med school, took a few years to do his doctoral work, and then went back into internship and residency. I'm not even sure how many years it took...a lot.
He is very interested in neurological research, but is starting to question. Why?
"I have moved up to boston for a new "job." It's not really a job--but actually a post-doc that pays so little it keeps me living as a student (living in a group house, unable to afford a car.) "Poverty" at 30 feels different than it did at 25, so I'm starting to have some doubts about this research thing."
The work he's doing sounds really important: "I'm researching how birds learn how to sing. The birds use a brain circuit to learn their song that is just like a mammalian circuit that learns movement and that goes awry in parkinson's, tourette's, and other movement disorders."
This reminds me of another friend of mine who is in post-doc for psychology. Right now he has two job opportunities (in NYC.) One is with a very well-known researcher. One is with a well-known (and high-end $$) therapeutic clinic. He too feels like he's in a quandary.
Here is my naive, layperson's impression of this: that these guys must be working on research that is too early on to lead directly to the creation of a marketable pharmaceutical or device products, and therefore they toil in obscurity and at low-pay.
And yet these guys are doing research that will form the foundation of that later leverageable research.
How accurate is my impression?
And if that impression is correct, how do we keep researchers from leaving the world of this research to make a better living? (Sort of like the recent new reports about doctors leaving third world countries in droves...it's disturbing and makes one worry about the future.)
That's me...all question, no solution. Sorry.
Recent Comments